QUESTIONING THE NATIONAL QUESTION

A response to the First Citizen Annual Dialogue,
held at Abuja Sheraton Hotel and Towers,
August 20, 1992

"One of the necessary consequences of social organization" wrote Ibn Khaldun, the great philosopher of history, "is disagreement." Thus it was only natural that people disagreed at the Citizen's dialogue on the National Question. The dialogue, in any case, was not and could not have been meant to arrive at an agreement on the National Question. For, in the first place, by its very nature the National Question is an on‑going concern which is inextricably linked with the dynamics of society. Secondly the very complexity of the Nigerian society and the haphazard and spurious manner in which the entity Nigeria came to be created will make consensus difficult to arrive at. The value of the dialogue is therefore in bringing to the fore these disagreements, and our differences. More significantly the dialogue itself was conducted in a typically Nigerian fashion: A scratch on the surface, the more fundamental issues ignored, uncomfortable truth swept under the carpet, the familiar rhetoric’s and half measures were rehearsed, and self appointed champions of human rights were on hand. The very make up of the panel left a sizable portion of the country without a voice. Whether it was oversight or it was a reflection of Citizen's perception of Nigeria, it curtailed both the scope of the discussion as well as the impact. From the speech of the president through the presentations of the members of the panel down to the comments from the floor, the dialogue did not go beyond sharing the national cake, even the much clamoured autonomy boiled down to money. Oil, the source of this money, acquired special prominence. While Dr. Bala Usman's reply to Ken Saro‑Wiwa on oil made a lot of sense, the whole exchange diverted attention from the certainly more important issue of where does our money go? What happens to these huge sums that are borrowed ostensibly on our behalf and for our welfare? Who gave this regime the right to mortgage this country to some Washington, London or Paris clubs? Who is to shoulder this devastating debt burden? The parochial concerns of the Ogonis, important as Saro‑Wiwa would like us to believe it is, must not be allowed to derail our thoughts. The issue of distributive and social justice, to be sure, is not economic; it is essentially a moral one. The recent fertilizer fraud should help illustrate  this point. The complexity of the Nigerian polity was one important point that earned several mention and reference but never a serious discussion. Saro‑Wiwa talked about the 395 ethnic groups that inhabit the entity called Nigeria. We need not bother about the accuracy of this figure, the point is a well known one, that Nigeria is made up of people of different languages, cultures, religions and therefore perspectives. Perhaps the only thing we have in common, beyond being human, is the misfortune of having fallen prey to British imperialism. To be sure, these differences were accentuated by the Western Euro‑Christian education that we received, which not only imparted European values, liberal thoughts and concepts but also cultivated in Western educated elite an inferiority complex and a corresponding contempt for our African traditions in general and Islam in particular. It was never the wish of the imperialists to educate their victims, but the very nature of their enterprise demanded that the victim acquire some literacy, acquaintance with European ethics and decorum and more importantly imbibe reverence for the Western man and his civilization. The more humane Christian missionaries who took the greater educational burden of the colonies saw their heaven inspired task as one of liberating the African from a "cruel and irrational system" which his culture and way of life represented. The very idea of the establishment of boarding schools, was essentially to ensure that children could "from infancy escape the supposed degenerating influence of the native home." The natural consequences of this type of education on those who embraced it whole heartedly was the subversion of their own identity and personality thorough Westernization of their world view. This difference in cultural orientation was (and still is) so profound that it showed in the very struggle for independence. For, as Dr. Mahmud Tukur aptly wrote ‘while the southern "nationalists" agitated for admission into the mainstream of European political life and culture and showed the determination of using this entry as the basis for ruling the whole country, the Northern elite not only showed contempt for their "unthinking imitativeness" but also resisted any move to replace British colonial rule with that of its putative heir from the South." This Southern "utter enthrallment with Western ideas and modes" is thought to be one of the main reasons that led radical Northern nationalist like Sa'adu Zungur, who authored the NCNC manifesto, to break away from his Southern colleagues. "The northern radicals" Dr. Tukur observed, "appear to have been caught in a 'dialogue of the deaf' situation wherein they developed a contempt for the 'southern imitativeness' while their Westernized colleagues saw them as poor cousins who should be redeemed from their backwardness." Attitudes die hard, much of this mental habits persist to this day and the dialogue of the deaf is far from over. Federalism was one way of mitigating these cultural tension and fears and forging some kind of unity. But our application of federalism in Nigeria suggests that we don't quite understand what it means and if we did then we were not prepared, for some curious reasons, to allow it full reins. Either way we aggravate these tensions and keep postponing the resolution of these problems at the great costs of human lives and property. The senseless proliferation of states and local governments, which was supposed to cater for these ethnic feeling and fears, or so the president thought and Saro‑Wiwa believed, has clearly not taken us far. If anything it has only heightened these ethnic feelings, taking them to catastrophic levels of the Jukun‑Tiv and Kataf‑Hausa conflict. If the essence of federalism is to recognize and appreciate our cultural and religious diversity and therefore the differences in our value systems and world‑views, we have already destroyed it by our straightjacketing and regimentation in matters of law, economy and politics. The Political Bureau, for example, which was supposed to develop a political system relevant to our socio‑cultural environment and reflect the wish of the populace, ignored with impunity the Islamic political culture, spanning several centuries back and regurgitated the same borrowed ideas whose manifest failure elicited the review in the first place. It is a measure of the Bureau's foresight that they recommended Socialism and only three years later the whole edifice of Socialism collapsed. Indeed from the very constitution of the Bureau one knew what to expect. Made up of an elite educated in typical Western tradition, who are totally ignorant of their societal cultural heritage and saw in the West the ultimate in wisdom and perfection, the Bureau could not see beyond the British or American models. The NYSC is one institution created to foster national unity, but its very uniforms, which it has insisted on for two decades now, have ignored with impunity the cultural values of a majority of our citizens ‑ the Muslims. Calls by Muslim women for change in NYSC uniforms have consistently and contemptuously been ignored. Uniforms may be trivial matters, but values are certainly not. Those deluded hybrids who insists that we have to have the same law, economy and politics to be united are only confusing unity with uniformity. And this attitude is certainly not the best way to build a nation, for cohesion will never develop out of coercion. The proliferation of states and local governments will not be of any avail, for as long as it is not accompanied with an autonomy which will allow for a substantial reflection of local culture and values. Our federalism is to say the least phantom and the local autonomy evidently bogus. One indeed is tempted to dismiss the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the same way Voltaire, the French philosopher and father of French revolution, dismissed the Holy Roman Empire, when he said it was “neither holy, nor Roman nor an empire!” Perhaps these difficulties arise from the mistaken assumption that Nigeria is a secular state. Though the constitution has been circumspect in using the term, we in our speeches, writings and more importantly actions, have not. But, if we may ask, who made Nigeria secular? When and why? Secularism, it must be clearly stated, is not universal, it is unmistakably and patently Euro‑Christian. It is the product of Europe's own experience with Christianity. The church in Europe had stood on the way of scientific idea and progress since the persecution of Galileo who insisted that the world was round and not flat as the church claimed. Europe found out that it had to break away from the church in order to make progress in science and technology. So modern Europe born out of this conflict saw the church and its religion as anti‑progress, anti‑rational and chose to be secular to escape from the control of a religion which had stunted its progress. Secularism was Europe's answer to the tyranny of the church. Muslim's experience with Islam was totally different. The first word of the message of Islam was the command to 'read!' By the end of its first century Islamic civilization had already assimilated the scientific and literary heritage of the Persian, Roman and Chinese civilizations. In the subsequent centuries it produced an unprecedented progress in science and technology, and through its universities in Spain, taught Europe these sciences and literally launched Europe into its renaissance. In Africa Islam spread literacy, cultivated learning, boosted trade and commerce, created states of varying complexities and established justice and equity at levels unprecedented and still unsurpassed. Secularism has thus no place in the Muslim mind, culture or history. If someone has through colonial or Christian missionary education imbibed the secular perspective, he should be entitled to live a secular life but cannot force it on others. But the matter, to be sure, does not rest with the issue of choice. It is beyond that. For sight must not be lost of the effect of secularism on the moral fibre of our society. Secularism has given full reins to whims and caprices. This has eventually eroded those core values of society which had been built on moral absolutes provided only by religion, and society gradually parts company with its social morality. If the National Question is seen in an entirely secular frame where religion becomes an uninvited guest, where matters of oil, local government and states creation and federal character take such dominating prominence, our troubles are far from over. We must be prepared to redefine the National Question to include the more fundamental issues of social morality, values, etc. We can continue to ignore these issues, like we have always done, but only at our own peril. The earlier this is done the better for all and sundry. A stitch in time, it is said, saves nine. By Usman Bugaje [ Published Citizen, October 5, 1992]